Alex Davis / Dryer, Stars pgs. 1-30, 87-131 / Core Response #1

Richard Dyer, Stars, offers a critical examination of the importance of studying stardom; offering an in-depth analysis of the conditions that exist and what they represent. I found the conditions for stardom to be especially interesting: a large scale society, economic development above subsistence, and social mobility. These conditions are largely recent developments in America, reliant on the creation of “Hollywood”. This consumption of mass media and communication allowed society to demand more insight into actors and celebrities. The important role stars posses is much broader than the layperson may assume. Stars shape social norms by determining large capital markets and trends for almost all major social aspects of society. 

Unique to film, as opposed to theatre, this medium lead to the discovery of the “human face” (Dyer 15). The intimate nature of film allows for a visual expression of facial features. In All About Eve, the beauty and simplicity about Eve is a sharp comparison to the harsh and poignant expression of Margo. In the end, the industry (and Margo’s husband) were drawn to Eve’s expression of beauty; causing a clash between both characters. This idea, in my opinion, has been challenged with the emerging presence of versatile/ actors. Close-ups reveal the personality of the individual, showcasing a unique personality of the individual. Now, we see emerging actors playing different roles that share similar themes (Johnny Depp) or versatile actors who play wildly different roles (Meryl Streep). 

In examining stars as a phenomenon of production, the effect of “magic and talent” is unquestionable. One explanation of the star culture is the belief that stars become famous because they are exceptional, gifted, and wonderful (Dyer 16). They are believed to be this way because of their looks, acting ability, presence on camera. charm, personality, sex-appeal, attractiveness, and much more. Now that this component of star-culture has been established, this is only being perpetuated even further. Despite efforts to humanize celebrities, the increasing importance of award shows (which we are in the middle of award season now) and titles (Oscar winner for ex.) will only further perpetuate this phenomenon. Actors/Actresses are now defined by their wins (generally, no one seems to care about the snubs), as exemplified by the triple threat (someone who wins an Oscar, Emmy, and a Tony). 

Recently, with the upcoming Oscar’s, there has been much criticism over the nominees. The lack of diversity in the categories and the absence of some movies from certain categories (Lego Movie - Animated Feature) has caused much debate over these awards. http://time.com/3672675/academy-awards-president-diversity/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/01/15/academy-awards-after-snapping-up-other-noms-why-was-the-lego-movie-snubbed-for-animation-oscar/ . If we believe in the magic and talent of Hollywood, what does it say about gender and race in society when only a certain segment of society receives these accolades? 

I think that the widespread debate and conversation over these issues is a testament to the important issue of stardom and how it affects social norms. Media has shifted from a display of ideal ways of behaving into showcasing typical ways of behaving, reflecting a wide array of human lifestyles. Celebrities now try to display an ideal of the everyday, portraying an augmented vision or lifestyle. In All about Eve, this attraction to the “girl next door” showcased a new vision for media that still exists today. Dyer also provides insight and commentary into stars and media as a description of reality and the status quo. If this is true, what does it suggest if movies such as American Sniper are the new norm? As opposed to All About Eve in the 1950s?